In “The Explanatory Emptiness of Naturalism” (another essay in Gilson & Weitnauer's anthology True Reason, which I mentioned a couple of posts back), religious philosopher and “former atheist sociopath”* David Wood, argues that, in order for there to be science, naturalism must be false. There are various reasons why he claims this is the case. These include the usual suspects, such as that naturalism is inconsistent with our ability to reason and that it cannot account for the uniformity in nature which science requires. (I've previously covered these issues, or something closely related to them, and rather than repeating myself have placed links below.)
Some of the other reasons he offers also involve common complaints against naturalism, but in ways that are odd in this context. For example, he argues that naturalism is incompatible with the existence of the universe, and from this concludes that under naturalism it would be impossible to practice science! (After all, there first has to be a world before anyone can be a scientist.)
Don't tell me people are not indoctrinated to believe. It happens to most all of us. Given that most people remain in their culturally indoctrinated faith and that most religious faiths are false at best, indoctrinating children is wrong! Teach your children to think like scientists instead, to question everything, to seek objective evidence before accepting a cultural or familial faith. In fact, reject faith itself. Accept only objective evidence for religious tales. If enough of it doesn't exist then suspend judgment. If there's a true faith it should have nothing to fear from this requirement:
Recently I participated in an online debate on an omni-god and suffering. My Catholic opponent mostly quoted from the Bible and Church fathers. Like so many others he had a strategy of nitpicking and using up my time in the cross-examination. Here are my opening and closing statements.
My 10 minute Opening Statement:
Believers will argue that not even a god could create a world without some minimal level of suffering in it. But what about the amount of horrific suffering that exists? That’s my focus.
Here’s the problem: If a god exists who is all-knowing, all-powerful and perfectly good, then the amount of horrific suffering in our world needs an explanation. Either this god isn’t smart enough to eliminate it, or isn’t powerful enough to eliminate it, or doesn’t care enough to eliminate it. The reason is that an all-knowing god would know how to eliminate it, an all-powerful god has the power to eliminate it, and a perfectly good god would want to eliminate it.
For the sake of argument what if such a god exists?
Professor David Eller first informed me of Darren Slade, who took some classes with him before attending and earning a PhD in theology from Liberty University, the one founded by Jerry Falwell. Dr. Slade has written a chapter for my anthology "The Case against Miracles" to be released in September (hopefully). He has also disavowed his alma mater! Read his testimony to understand why.
His testimony mirrors mine and many others who study in Evangelical colleges. It expresses the need for thinking outside the box of one's culturally adopted religious faith. He wrote:
Here is a challenge to Christian apologists. How much time do you set aside reading books and essays outside your comfort zone? Let me be specific here. I have this book coming out in the Fall. Are you planning on reading it? There is no better way to become an apologist than to know the arguments of the opposition better than they do. You should try it. Here's some other helpful advice:
Here are a couple of the “reasonable Christian responses” (as he calls them) that apologist John M. DePoe offers for the existence of natural evils (True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism, ed. Tom Gilson and Carson Weitnauer, pp. 218-219):
(1) There cannot be free will in any meaningful sense unless the world is governed by laws that make it behave in a sufficiently regular manner. These laws, however, “are also the cause of various phenomena, like hurricanes, tornadoes, and diseases.” It follows that one cannot avoid the existence of such natural disasters without eliminating our ability to exercise free will.
(2) Natural evils aren’t intrinsically evil; they are only bad when they harm moral agents. It follows that “if people had not chosen to settle in an area prone to tornado activity or on a fault line, there would be no associated evil event.”
This video was posted on Facebook by Cameron Bertuzzi who interviewed apologist Greg Koukl. It was on how their god could send people to hell who never heard the gospel. How could a good god do that? It's instructive of the ways on an apologist. You should watch it. There are plenty of things to learn, most notably how to obfuscate, or hide the truth.
Yes, yes, yes, there is so much to say, and not enough time. Regardless, here are several of my comments put into one response below (along with a link):
